In last week’s column, I expressed my concern that our country is rapidly moving away from the governmental restraint outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I invited people to briefly tell me why they thought the Constitution was flawed or unfair, or with what parts they disagree.
I received so many replies that I had to pick and choose what to include. I received few e-mails from true liberals, though I received many replies from conservatives who gave me their thoughts as to how liberals interpret these documents. The replies were extremely polite, for which I thank everyone.
I’m not making judgments on these answers; I’m just reporting them as a glimpse into how people interpret the Constitution. Each paragraph is input from a different reader:
“The Constitution is flawed in that it does not contain a mechanism for The People to enforce it, other than the ballot box (which doesn’t repeal legislation) – or revolution.”
“Is Social Security constitutional? How did the politicians and the Supreme Court justify this Ponzi scheme back in the 1930s?”
“I don’t think the liberals think or believe the Constitution is flawed. I think that they love to play with and tweak words to suit what they distortedly believe is their ‘right’ to have what they have not earned. They hate to see people work hard, have what they have not earned, and tear us down because they feel jealous and inferior. They feel that they are owed and want to force charity upon the working people. Granted, many of these liberals do work, but I do not think that their brainwashed minds of entitlement allow them to fathom the magnitude of these (Pelosi, Reid, Congress, Obama) decisions and the impact it will have on all of our lives. They love being lied to because it gives them a cause. … Liberals love to have a cause, no matter how twisted and false it may be. They have not learned what is really important in life, therefore push their own selfish and destructive agendas.”
“Liberals will no doubt respond to the challenge by quoting the preamble to the Constitution – they always do. They will say that their liberal policies ‘promote the general Welfare’ and thus are constitutional. My top two responses: 1) In saying the general-welfare clause is unlimited, you are saying the founders were trying to establish a government without limits on what it can do – Soviet-style? 2) However, the preamble exactly means that ‘in order to promote the general welfare we do establish and ordain this specific set of enumerated powers and limits to government action, namely, this Constitution.’ You cannot quote the general-welfare clause without also saying the rest of the Constitution (not every pie-in-the-sky scheme you can think of) is the modifier to the general-welfare clause. So it is entirely appropriate that Nancy Pelosi be challenged: If you are trying to promote the general welfare, as you clearly think you are, where in the CONSTITUTION do find that power enumerated? You can’t quote the general-welfare clause without pointing out that it is strictly limited to what is in the rest of the Constitution.”
“What is the average citizen’s incentive to subvert–destroy–ignore–etc. the Constitution set up to prevent the government from taking over and destroying their own lives? I know many people, and most of them voted for Obama and most of them agree(d) with his agenda. So I have had ample opportunity to speak to them about their views. As it turns out, the answer is simpler than you might think, but it’s not one that ANY liberal is going to give you. Liberalism is the politics of the immature. They have never truly grown up to take responsibility for their own lives. Therefore, when someone wants to ‘take care of them’ or give them something, they are eager to accept it. The motherly warning ‘never take candy from strangers’ apparently never sunk in for them. Liberal/immature people in this country (and all over the world, in fact) have removed God from their lives because He requires them to grow up, control themselves, and take responsibility for their actions and choices. The government, like the smarmy pedophile, doesn’t require anything of the liberal other than to trust it and obey. The end result is the same as well.”
“I’m Libertarian, but my wife is a liberal with some common sense, if that’s possible. My wife does not like the Constitution because she says it is outdated and written by a bunch of rich white criminals. If you think about it, in the eyes of the British they were criminals. They would have had to think and move like criminals to accomplish their goals, since what they were doing was technically illegal at the time. She believes the Constitution cannot be valid today because, no matter how smart the framers were, they could not have envisioned the world that we have today. We are a global society, and we do have to think on a global level. She also says that at the time the Constitution was written it was written for white men. Women had no rights, nor did people of any other race have rights in their eyes. She refuses to look up to anyone who owned slaves, because even if it was the norm for the time, a person that is good at heart knows that slavery is wrong and would not participate. Our most heated arguments are about the Second Amendment. She does not like firearms and is for abolishing them. But not just for everyday people, even for the cops and the military. She believes if we are going to defend ourselves, it should be with our hands and not with weapons. She will not take another life, even to save her own or someone else’s. That is because to her, all people are bad and we all need to be wiped out and just let the planet start over.”
“I do not think the Constitution is flawed, but here is my argument as to why liberals think like they do and why conservatives think the way they do. Basically there are two camps. The liberals believe man is basically good and is evolving into a better creature over time. They have faith in man, especially the more enlightened ones like themselves, to make decisions for the masses, and that will help them evolve into more enlightened people. They believe restrictions upon their power slow their ability to shape the evolutionary process for man. The other side believes man in naturally inclined to do evil and his basic human condition has not and will not change. This is what our founders believed. They constructed the Constitution to put checks upon men in government so that their natural lust for power, greed, etc. would be constrained.”
“Which entities would you like to dissolve? The FAA, FDA, SEC, Social Security, Medicaid, ODOT, VA, Postal Service, etc.? I’m from Oklahoma where people like to think of themselves as independent, but I’m also a realist in the fact that this country wouldn’t be as prosperous if it weren’t for the federal government.”
I saved the best answer for last:
“I offer the flaw of the Constitution as presented by President John Adams: ‘Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.'”